Rennlist Top 10 HP/TQ
08-04-2005, 07:43 PM
#124
Originally Posted by NZ951
What now? The ranking is by HP not TQ. Anything else?
08-04-2005, 08:05 PM
#125
Rennlist Member
Originally quoted by Andy,
"Joe you wrote "I am in talks with them as they think there is more than 100whp to be had with my motor."
Raines must be thinking about going to Garrett turbos! "
Andy, I think they are want to change injectors, turbo and go to Motec...
"Joe you wrote "I am in talks with them as they think there is more than 100whp to be had with my motor."
Raines must be thinking about going to Garrett turbos! "
Andy, I think they are want to change injectors, turbo and go to Motec...
08-04-2005, 08:08 PM
#126
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by MPD47
I would think in the case of a HP tie, the ranking would goto the higher of the two's tq. But hey, that's just me.
08-04-2005, 08:25 PM
#127
Instructor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: oklahoma city
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just waiting to be Added to the list. Do believe spot #4 in the 2.5 list would be mine. It doesn't say im a member it my profile but i am my member # is 040307 - 3120. So please include me.
08-04-2005, 08:27 PM
#128
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Updating NZ's "HP" Only List
Originally Posted by NZ951
The categories are:
0 - 2,500cc
1. Under Pressure Performance 475WHP / 392TQ (dynojet)
2. Special Tool 472WHP / 438TQ (mustang dyno)
3. Rage2 461WHP(6500) / 401WTQ(5700) (dynojet)
4. Chris White 370WHP / 350TQ (mustang dyno)
5. David Salama 361WHP / 350TQ (dynojet)
6. Jimbo1111 355WHP / 358TQ (mustang dyno)
7. Daniel951 350WHP / 361TQ (dynojet)
8. Tom M'Guinn 345WHP / 317TQ (dynajet)
9. NZ951 334WHP / 330TQ (dyno dynamics)
10. NeedForSpeed 330WHP / 330TQ (dynojet)
2,501 - 2,800cc
1. Rage2 412WHP(6400) / 372WTQ(5600)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
2,801+cc
1. DFASTEST (3.0 16v) 480WHP / 470TQ (dynojet)
2. RolexNJ 461WHP / 406TQ
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Overall (irrespective of displacement)
1. DFASTEST 480WHP / 470TQ (dynojet)
2. Under Pressure Performance 475WHP / 392TQ (dynojet)
3. Special Tool 472WHP/438TQ (mustang dyno)
4. Rage2 461WHP(6500) / 401WTQ(5700) (dynojet)
5. RolexNJ 461WHP / 406TQ
6. Chris White 370WHP / 350TQ (mustang dyno)
7. David Salama 361WHP / 350TQ (dynojet)
8. Jimbo1111 355WHP / 358TQ (mustang dyno)
9. Daniel951 350WHP / 361TQ (dynojet)
10. Tom M'Guinn 345WHP / 317TQ (dynajet)
11. NZ951 334WHP / 330TQ (dyno dynamics)
12. NeedForSpeed 330WHP / 330TQ (dynojet)
13. Mike S 325WHP / 305TQ (dynapack)
14. Porshhhh951 301WHP / 341TQ (dynojet)
15. Jake951 297WHP / 317TQ (dynojet)
Post your dyno (in WHP), or send it to me and I will add you to the list. You must be a member to make it on the list. If you post it, delete your post once the list has been updated, we want to keep this thread about the list, other threads may spawn off it, but start new ones.
0 - 2,500cc
1. Under Pressure Performance 475WHP / 392TQ (dynojet)
2. Special Tool 472WHP / 438TQ (mustang dyno)
3. Rage2 461WHP(6500) / 401WTQ(5700) (dynojet)
4. Chris White 370WHP / 350TQ (mustang dyno)
5. David Salama 361WHP / 350TQ (dynojet)
6. Jimbo1111 355WHP / 358TQ (mustang dyno)
7. Daniel951 350WHP / 361TQ (dynojet)
8. Tom M'Guinn 345WHP / 317TQ (dynajet)
9. NZ951 334WHP / 330TQ (dyno dynamics)
10. NeedForSpeed 330WHP / 330TQ (dynojet)
2,501 - 2,800cc
1. Rage2 412WHP(6400) / 372WTQ(5600)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
2,801+cc
1. DFASTEST (3.0 16v) 480WHP / 470TQ (dynojet)
2. RolexNJ 461WHP / 406TQ
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Overall (irrespective of displacement)
1. DFASTEST 480WHP / 470TQ (dynojet)
2. Under Pressure Performance 475WHP / 392TQ (dynojet)
3. Special Tool 472WHP/438TQ (mustang dyno)
4. Rage2 461WHP(6500) / 401WTQ(5700) (dynojet)
5. RolexNJ 461WHP / 406TQ
6. Chris White 370WHP / 350TQ (mustang dyno)
7. David Salama 361WHP / 350TQ (dynojet)
8. Jimbo1111 355WHP / 358TQ (mustang dyno)
9. Daniel951 350WHP / 361TQ (dynojet)
10. Tom M'Guinn 345WHP / 317TQ (dynajet)
11. NZ951 334WHP / 330TQ (dyno dynamics)
12. NeedForSpeed 330WHP / 330TQ (dynojet)
13. Mike S 325WHP / 305TQ (dynapack)
14. Porshhhh951 301WHP / 341TQ (dynojet)
15. Jake951 297WHP / 317TQ (dynojet)
Post your dyno (in WHP), or send it to me and I will add you to the list. You must be a member to make it on the list. If you post it, delete your post once the list has been updated, we want to keep this thread about the list, other threads may spawn off it, but start new ones.
Cheers!
0 - 2,500cc
1. Under Pressure Performance 475WHP / 392TQ (dynojet)
2. Special Tool 472WHP / 438TQ (mustang dyno)
3. Rage2 461WHP(6500) / 401WTQ(5700) (dynojet)
4. Stewardx 374RWHP / 389TQ (dynojet)
5. Chris White 370WHP / 350TQ (mustang dyno)
6. David Salama 361WHP / 350TQ (dynojet)
7. Jimbo1111 355WHP / 358TQ (mustang dyno)
8. Daniel951 350WHP / 361TQ (dynojet)
9. Tom M'Guinn 345WHP / 317TQ (dynajet)
10. NZ951 334WHP / 330TQ (dyno dynamics)
11. NeedForSpeed 330WHP / 330TQ (dynojet)
08-04-2005, 08:53 PM
#129
Race Director
Thread Starter
Stewardx does not have member status... so he will not be included until his status shows that he is a member. Hope that puts your worried mind at ease Timex.
I am waiting on Rage2 and Davids dyno charts still...
I am waiting on Rage2 and Davids dyno charts still...
08-04-2005, 09:58 PM
#131
Race Director
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by stewardx
Then I suggest you call Jennifer. I am a member with a member id
08-04-2005, 11:38 PM
#132
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Assonet, MA
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a short post to address SpecialTool's post regarding the comparative dyno figures between an inertia type dyno versus a load type dyno...
For starters, I mean/meant no disrespect to anyone that has dyno results compiled on a Mustang or any other load type dyno. For all intents and purposes the numbers for any given dyno are valid but the topic was correction factors and adjustments for *different types* of dynos - That said, I offer the collective *experience* of myself and more than just a couple of other professional race engine builders that are personal friends and associates of mine. Collectively, it is *our* experience that in virtually all cases the RWHP & TQ numbers are *lower* on a load type *Mustang* dyno in a normally aspirated application versus a *Dynojet*, however, I stand firm on my findings that the results read *higher* on a *Mustang* load type dyno versus a *DynoJet* in *turbocharged* applications.
Again, this is not an assumption, guess, heresay, or myth. This is the actual findings of *several* prefessional race engine builders, including what I have witnessed myself. That is not to say that that the misconception is unfounded, again, in normally aspirated applications the results are lower. Also, it is worth noting that results for supercharged cars ALSO indicate lower numbers on the load type dyno.
Being that a supercharged vehicle is considered *forced induction* just as a turbocharged application, perhaps this is where the assumption/misconception is made? However, the truth is that supercharged vehicles and a turbocharged vehicles act differently when a load is imposed. To assume otherwise is a mistake, and this is where, I believe, the misconception is born.
All that said, here is what I am willing to do to put the issue to rest...
I am willing to take you up on your suggestion to have your car dyno'ed at our facility - In fact, I am willing to dyno your car and pick up the tab, no cost to you.
Simply put, I think this would be a great opportunity for the both of us. Also, it will allow me to demonstrate to you, and to anyone else interested, that what I am preaching regarding load type and inertia type dynos in turbocharged applications is factual and accurate. So here is my offer...
I am willing to strap your car down and allow three back to back pulls (no performance/part changes). The pulls should all be made at the same boost pressure and your vehicle should be in the same configuration as it was when dyno'ed on the Mustang dyno. I will provide you with two sets of dyno sheets, one set SAE corrected, one set uncorrected. I will have at least two people taping the session, one with a camera on the monitor, the other on your instrumentation/boost guage. In addition, we will tie in a calibrated boost guage to verify your intake pressure. Also, we will provide you with wideband data and your run data in text output at 50 RPM intervals.
All together, the dyno pulls, video, data, instrumentation, and staff labor, this is roughly a $350.00 package - Free. Why? Well, for three very good reasons...
First, You get the opportunity to prove me wrong (that alone is worth the price of admission) and at the same time you get to prove to the non-believers here that not only your car has the gusto you claim it has, but that you are correct in your assumptions regarding load type dynos versus inertia type dynos. So, in that sense, you benefit in more than one way.
The second reason I am willing to do this is, well, I know what I am talking about, and I am willing to make the investment to prove it, not only to you, but to anyone else interested.
Third, you get your car dynoed on a DynoJet for nadda, and walk away with all the data that will silent any and all the naysayers when it comes to your project.
If for some odd reason your project proves to have some unique qualities that prove my experience and findings wrong, I will acknowledge such and will revise my stand on the subject.
This is not a challenge of any sort, it is not meant to serve as anything more than an opportunity for the both of us to see who's right, who's wrong, and if nothing else, you walk away with a free dyno session and I get to meet yet another fellow Rennlister in person, nothing ever wrong with that.
Hopefully we can get together and make this happen, I think it would be great to take advantage of this opportunity to put this subject/misconception to rest. In addition, it would be great to meet you in person. You can see some of the stuff I have in the works and perhaps we can do some lunch?
Let me know what you think and we can go from there. My schedule is relatively flexable and I am open to the idea of doing this anytime between noon and seven in the evening, or on a Saturday - Whatever works best for you, probably works for me.
PM me and we can schedule something.
For starters, I mean/meant no disrespect to anyone that has dyno results compiled on a Mustang or any other load type dyno. For all intents and purposes the numbers for any given dyno are valid but the topic was correction factors and adjustments for *different types* of dynos - That said, I offer the collective *experience* of myself and more than just a couple of other professional race engine builders that are personal friends and associates of mine. Collectively, it is *our* experience that in virtually all cases the RWHP & TQ numbers are *lower* on a load type *Mustang* dyno in a normally aspirated application versus a *Dynojet*, however, I stand firm on my findings that the results read *higher* on a *Mustang* load type dyno versus a *DynoJet* in *turbocharged* applications.
Again, this is not an assumption, guess, heresay, or myth. This is the actual findings of *several* prefessional race engine builders, including what I have witnessed myself. That is not to say that that the misconception is unfounded, again, in normally aspirated applications the results are lower. Also, it is worth noting that results for supercharged cars ALSO indicate lower numbers on the load type dyno.
Being that a supercharged vehicle is considered *forced induction* just as a turbocharged application, perhaps this is where the assumption/misconception is made? However, the truth is that supercharged vehicles and a turbocharged vehicles act differently when a load is imposed. To assume otherwise is a mistake, and this is where, I believe, the misconception is born.
All that said, here is what I am willing to do to put the issue to rest...
I am willing to take you up on your suggestion to have your car dyno'ed at our facility - In fact, I am willing to dyno your car and pick up the tab, no cost to you.
Simply put, I think this would be a great opportunity for the both of us. Also, it will allow me to demonstrate to you, and to anyone else interested, that what I am preaching regarding load type and inertia type dynos in turbocharged applications is factual and accurate. So here is my offer...
I am willing to strap your car down and allow three back to back pulls (no performance/part changes). The pulls should all be made at the same boost pressure and your vehicle should be in the same configuration as it was when dyno'ed on the Mustang dyno. I will provide you with two sets of dyno sheets, one set SAE corrected, one set uncorrected. I will have at least two people taping the session, one with a camera on the monitor, the other on your instrumentation/boost guage. In addition, we will tie in a calibrated boost guage to verify your intake pressure. Also, we will provide you with wideband data and your run data in text output at 50 RPM intervals.
All together, the dyno pulls, video, data, instrumentation, and staff labor, this is roughly a $350.00 package - Free. Why? Well, for three very good reasons...
First, You get the opportunity to prove me wrong (that alone is worth the price of admission) and at the same time you get to prove to the non-believers here that not only your car has the gusto you claim it has, but that you are correct in your assumptions regarding load type dynos versus inertia type dynos. So, in that sense, you benefit in more than one way.
The second reason I am willing to do this is, well, I know what I am talking about, and I am willing to make the investment to prove it, not only to you, but to anyone else interested.
Third, you get your car dynoed on a DynoJet for nadda, and walk away with all the data that will silent any and all the naysayers when it comes to your project.
If for some odd reason your project proves to have some unique qualities that prove my experience and findings wrong, I will acknowledge such and will revise my stand on the subject.
This is not a challenge of any sort, it is not meant to serve as anything more than an opportunity for the both of us to see who's right, who's wrong, and if nothing else, you walk away with a free dyno session and I get to meet yet another fellow Rennlister in person, nothing ever wrong with that.
Hopefully we can get together and make this happen, I think it would be great to take advantage of this opportunity to put this subject/misconception to rest. In addition, it would be great to meet you in person. You can see some of the stuff I have in the works and perhaps we can do some lunch?
Let me know what you think and we can go from there. My schedule is relatively flexable and I am open to the idea of doing this anytime between noon and seven in the evening, or on a Saturday - Whatever works best for you, probably works for me.
PM me and we can schedule something.
08-04-2005, 11:40 PM
#133
HAHA - thanks man. But we have a group date scheduled for Monday - and one of the guys is picking up my tab to pay me back for some parts that I sent to him.
I might go for 2 freebies in a row, however - maybe a couple weeks....
I might go for 2 freebies in a row, however - maybe a couple weeks....
08-05-2005, 12:14 AM
#134
Rennlist Member
Scott,
If it gets me free stuff, I disagree with everything you've ever said -- especially all that talk about building good heads. Go on, prove me wrong....I dare ya
If it gets me free stuff, I disagree with everything you've ever said -- especially all that talk about building good heads. Go on, prove me wrong....I dare ya
08-05-2005, 01:31 AM
#135
Rennlist Member
So now wait a minute. After reading what Scott said, I have a question. Can you run a dynojet on inertia without a load? Then run again with a load? Because(thank god I had a few rennlisters there to witness. Hope that guy who races in the 944 spec club in Phoenix reads and verifies this) we ran a first run without load and it registered just over 500 whp. I just remembered all this and am now asking for help. Then they put a load on it and it registered the 480whp. Does this make sense? Can you run with and without load on a dynojet. That's what I think we did. I'm almost positive. Powerhaus has a lot of respect for Scott and his motors as he does things with "no hype" as well. Can anyone help explain this to me? I had a load run that was printed out as if it were on the road. Not just on inertia as they said it's not "real" numbers. There needs to be a load on it to simulate the resistence of being on the road. Isn't this how everyone runs on a dyno? I'm a rookie when it comes to dynos but that's what we did.